The 2012-13 Budget:
mac Taylor
Legislative Analyst

February 23, 2012

Refocusing CDCR After
The 2011 Realignment

2012-13 B u d g e t

2	

Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

2012-13 B u d g e t

Executive Summary
In 2011, the state enacted several bills to “realign” to county governments the responsibility for
certain low-level offenders, parolees, and parole violators. These changes will result in significant
reductions in the inmate and parole populations managed by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). These reductions will have various implications for how
CDCR manages its prison and parole system.
Three-Judge Panel. The 2011 realignment was undertaken, in part, to comply with a federal
court order to reduce overcrowding in the state’s 33 prisons to no more than 137.5 percent of the
design capacity by June 2013. Based on CDCR’s current population projections, it appears that it
will eventually reach the court-imposed population limit, though not by the June 2013 deadline.
Thus, we recommend that the state request more time from the court. If additional reductions to the
state prison population are needed, the Legislature has several options it could consider, including
expanded use of contracted beds and various alternatives to prison.
Inmate Housing. As a result of realignment, CDCR is projected to have a shortfall in highsecurity housing and a surplus in its other housing types. To address this, we recommend that
the Legislature direct CDCR to maximize the use of its existing facilities to house high-security
inmates—for example, by converting reception centers to high-security facilities. We also
recommend that the department identify various options to address any continuing shortfall in
high-security housing that would remain. Based on these revised plans, the Legislature may want to
significantly reduce the size of the Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007 (AB 900, Solorio) prison construction
bond and could consider closing some existing prisons.
Fire Camps. Because realignment will reduce the population of low-level offenders, it will
likely result in a significant decline in the number of inmates eligible to work in fire camps. This
is problematic because failing to house offenders in these camps hurts the state’s ability to comply
with the above federal court order, increases prison costs, and increases the state’s cost to fight fires.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to review the eligibility criteria for
fire camps and look for other options to increase the number of state inmates in the program.
Inmate Medical Care. Realignment will make it easier to deliver adequate care to inmates
requiring chronic outpatient medical care and alter the need for health care facility upgrades at
existing prisons. As such, we recommend the Legislature approve the Governor’s plan to cancel
the additional outpatient housing facilities proposed at Dewitt and Estrella and review any future
proposals for health facility upgrades to ensure that they account for the impacts of realignment. We
find that the construction of a new prison hospital in Stockton will meet most of the department’s
ongoing need for inpatient hospital beds. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature not
approve the construction of any additional inpatient hospital beds at this time.
Inmate Mental Health Care. Realignment will significantly reduce the number of mentally ill
inmates in the state’s prisons. As a result, we are projecting that the department may have excess
treatment and housing space for certain types of mentally ill inmates that it could repurpose for
other uses (such as providing treatment to other types of mentally ill inmates for whom there is a

	

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	3

2012-13 B u d g e t

shortage of capacity). We recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to report at budget hearings
regarding its mental health facility plans, including how it plans to utilize the projected surplus of
capacity following the full implementation of realignment.
CDCR Rehabilitation Programs. The department is not currently delivering rehabilitation
programs for inmates and parolees as effectively as possible, and there appears to be a substantial
mismatch between the types of programs offered by CDCR and the needs of inmates and parolees.
Realignment will likely change the mix of programs needed by the remaining population of inmates
and parolees. We recommend that the Legislature not approve the Governor’s proposed restoration of the current-year, one-time reduction of $101 million to rehabilitation programs until the
department has presented a plan for how it will modify its programs to account for the impacts of
realignment and conform to principles of effective programming.

4	

Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

2012-13 B u d g e t

Introduction
In 2011, the state enacted several bills to realign
to county governments the responsibility for
managing and supervising certain felon offenders
who previously had been eligible for state prison
and parole. Over the next few years, these changes
will result in significant reductions in the inmate
and parole populations managed by CDCR. The
purpose of this report, which is the second of a
two-part series examining the impacts of the 2011
realignment on California’s criminal justice system,
is to identify the impacts of the realignment of
adult offenders on CDCR’s operations and facility
needs.
Specifically, this report discusses whether
realignment will enable the state to meet the prison
population limit required by the federal court,

and how the state should proceed if it appears that
these limits will be missed in the time line specified
by the court. In addition, the report discusses
how the change in the makeup of CDCR’s inmate
population following realignment will affect its
housing, mental health, and medical facility needs,
and provides recommendations on how to better
match CDCR facilities with the remaining inmate
population. We also discuss how realignment will
impact the state’s fire camp program and how
the state can ensure that this program continues
to yield its full benefit following realignment.
Finally, we describe how realignment will affect
the need for rehabilitation programs and how to
better match these programs to the needs of the
remaining inmates and parolees.

Background
2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders
Several times over the last 20 years, the state
has sought significant policy improvements by
reviewing state and local government programs and
realigning responsibilities to a level of government
more likely to achieve good outcomes. As part of
the 2011-12 budget package, the state enacted such
a reform by realigning to counties responsibility
for adult offenders and parolees, court security,
various public safety grants, mental health services,
substance abuse treatment, child welfare programs,
adult protective services, and California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids. To finance
the new responsibilities shifted to local governments,
the 2011 realignment plan reallocated state sales tax
and state and local vehicle license fee revenues to
counties. (Please see our recent report, The 2012-13
Budget: The 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders—
An Update, for a more detailed description of the
overall 2011 realignment plan.)

	

The most significant policy change created by
the 2011 realignment is the shift of responsibility
for adult offenders and parolees from the state to
the counties. As we discuss later in this report, this
realignment was adopted in part due to a federal
court order to reduce overcrowding in California’s
prison system. The shift in responsibilities can be
divided into three distinct parts: the shift of lowerlevel offenders, the shift of parolees, and the shift of
parole violators. We discuss each in detail below.
•	

Lower-Level Offenders. The 2011
realignment limited which felons can be
sent to state prison, thereby requiring
that more felons be managed by counties.
Specifically, sentences to state prison are
now limited to registered sex offenders,
individuals with a current or prior serious
or violent offense, and individuals that
commit certain other specified offenses.
Thus, counties are now responsible for

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	5

2012-13 B u d g e t

housing and supervising all felons that do
not meet that criteria. The shift was done
on a prospective basis effective October 1,
2011, meaning that no inmates under state
jurisdiction prior to that date were transferred to the counties. Only lower-level
offenders convicted after that date came
under county jurisdiction.
•	

•	

6	

Parolees. Before realignment, individuals
released from state prison were supervised
in the community by state parole agents.
Following realignment, however, state
parole agents only supervise individuals
released from prison whose current offense
is serious or violent, as well as certain
other individuals including those who have
been assessed to be Mentally Disordered
Offenders or High Risk Sex Offenders.
The remaining individuals—those whose
current offense is nonserious and
nonviolent, and who otherwise are
not required to be on state parole—are
released from prison to community
supervision under county jurisdiction.
This shift was also done on a prospective
basis, so that only individuals released
from state prison after October 1, 2011
became a county responsibility. County
supervision of offenders released from
state prison is referred to as Post-Release
Community Supervision and will generally
be conducted by county probation
departments.
Parole Violators. Prior to realignment,
individuals released from prison could
be returned to state prison for violating
a term of their supervision. Following
realignment, however, those offenders
released from prison—whether supervised
by the state or counties—must generally

Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

serve their revocation term in county jail.
(The exception to this requirement is that
individuals released from prison after
serving an indeterminate life sentence
may still be returned to prison for a
parole violation.) In addition, individuals
realigned to county supervision will
not appear before the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) for revocation hearings,
and will instead have these proceedings
in a trial court. Before July 1, 2013,
individuals supervised by state parole
agents will continue to appear before BPH
for revocation hearings. After that date,
however, the trial courts will also assume
responsibility for conducting revocation
hearings for state parolees. These changes
were also made effective on a prospective
basis, effective October 1, 2011.
Significant Decline in
State Correctional Populations
40,000 Fewer Inmates by 2017. As shown
in Figure 1, CDCR projects that the average
daily prison population will be nearly 11,000
inmates, or 7 percent, lower in 2011-12 than it
would have been in the absence of realignment.
By 2016-17, the department estimates that the
prison population will be lower by nearly 40,000
inmates, or 24 percent, than it otherwise would
have been absent the 2011 realignment. By the end
of this projection period, the state’s prison system
is expected to have about 124,000 inmates. These
estimates are consistent with the administration’s
original projections regarding the impact of the
2011 realignment on the state prison population.
51,000 Fewer Parolees by 2017. The 2011
realignment is projected to result in an even greater
reduction in the number of parolees supervised
by the state. As shown in Figure 2, CDCR projects
that the average daily parole population will be

2012-13 B u d g e t

nearly 4,300 parolees,
or 5 percent lower, in
2011-12 than it would have
been in the absence of
realignment. By 2016-17,
the department estimates
that the parole population
will be nearly 51,000
parolees, or 66 percent
lower, than it otherwise
would have been absent
the 2011 realignment. By
the end of this projection
period, the state parole
system is expected to have
about 26,000 parolees.

Figure 1

Realignment Projected to
Significantly Decrease Inmate Population
Realignment Reduction
Inmate Population

180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000

Significant Decline
in State Correctional
Spending
At the time the 2011
realignment was enacted,
the administration
estimated that the above
decline in the inmate
and parole populations
would reduce spending
on CDCR operations by
$453 million in 2011-12
and by about $1.5 billion in
2014-15. Based on updated
information from the
Department of Finance
(DOF), the administration
now projects that the
2011 realignment will
save significantly more
than initially estimated.
Specifically, DOF estimates
that the total reduction in
spending on CDCR will
	

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Figure 2

Realignment Projected to
Significantly Decrease Parole Population
180,000
Realignment Reduction
160,000

Parole Population

140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	7

2012-13 B u d g e t

reach about $1.7 billion in 2014-15—$200 million,
about 14 percent, higher than the original estimate.
The higher-than-expected savings are attributable to
a much larger planned reduction in costs for CDCR’s
adult institutions and administrative functions. Most

of the savings created by realignment are related to
reductions in prison spending (about 65 percent),
with lesser amounts attributable to parole reductions
(about 20 percent), and administrative savings (about
15 percent).

Federal Court Order to
Reduce Prison Overcrowding
As previously mentioned, the realignment of
certain lower-level offenders and parole violators was
partly intended to help comply with a federal court
order to reduce overcrowding in California prisons.
Below, we discuss the court’s order and whether the
state is on track to meet it in the time line specified.
Background
Federal Three-Judge Panel Ordered State to
Reduce Prison Overcrowding. In November 2006,
plaintiffs in two ongoing class action lawsuits—
Plata v. Brown (involving inmate medical care)
and Coleman v. Brown (involving inmate mental
health care)—filed motions for the courts to
convene a three-judge panel pursuant to the U.S.
Prison Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs argued
that persistent overcrowding in the state’s prison
system was preventing CDCR from delivering
constitutionally adequate health care to inmates. In
August 2009, the three-judge panel declared that
overcrowding in the state’s prison system was the
primary reason that CDCR was unable to provide
inmates with constitutionally adequate health
care. Specifically, the court ruled that in order for
CDCR to provide such care, overcrowding would
have to be reduced to no more than 137.5 percent of
the design capacity in the state’s 33 prisons within
two years. (Design capacity generally refers to the
number of beds that CDCR would operate if it
housed only one inmate per cell in its 33 prisons,

8	

Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

and did not use temporary beds, such as housing
inmates in gyms. Inmates housed in contract
facilities or fire camps are not counted toward the
overcrowding limit.) The court required the state
to reduce overcrowding to specific design capacity
limits at six-month intervals leading up to the
two-year deadline.
Three-Judge Panel Decision Upheld by
Supreme Court. Following an appeal of the
decision by the state, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld the three-judge panel’s ruling, declaring
that “without a reduction in overcrowding, there
will be no efficacious remedy for the unconstitutional care of the sick and mentally ill” inmates
in California’s prisons. Figure 3 shows, for each
six-month interval, the design capacity limit
ordered by the federal courts, the corresponding
number of inmates that the state could house in its
prisons, and the incremental inmate population
reductions necessary to meet the court’s population
limit.
While the state has undergone various
changes to reduce overcrowding prior to the
passage of the realignment legislation—including
transferring inmates to out-of-state contract
facilities, construction of new facilities, and
various statutory changes to reduce the prison
population—the realignment of adult offenders is
the most significant change undertaken to reduce
overcrowding.

2012-13 B u d g e t

Realignment May Not
Enable State to Meet
Court Deadlines

Figure 3

Estimated Inmate Population Reductions
To Meet Federal Court Ruling

Current Projections
Design
Population
Population
Court-Imposed Deadline
Capacity Limit
Limit
Reductiona
Show Population
Reductions Met in
December 27, 2011
167.0%
133,000
11,000
June
27,
2012
155.0
123,000
10,000
Out Years . . . Based
December 27, 2012
147.0
117,000
6,000
on CDCR’s current
June 27, 2013
137.5
110,000
7,000
population projections,
	 Two-Year Total
34,000
a	 Relative to the pre-realignment September 28, 2011 population of 144,138 inmates.
it appears that the state
may not meet the future
uncertainty as to whether the state will, in fact,
population limits set by
miss those deadlines as they approach. This is
the federal court. In particular, the projections
because CDCR’s population projections could be
show the state missing the final population limit
either higher or lower than what actually materiof no more than 110,000 inmates housed in state
alizes. For example, over the past several months,
prisons by June 2013. Specifically, the projecthe inmate population has actually been lower
tions show the state exceeding this limit by about
than what the department projected in the fall
6,000 inmates. However, the projections indicate
2011. Moreover, the accuracy of the department’s
that the state will meet the court-imposed limit by
projections historically are reduced the further
the end of 2014. Figure 4 compares the projected
into the projection period one looks. In the current
inmate population and the three-judge panel
population limits. (We
note that the increase
in the population limit
in September 2013
reflects the completion
of the California Health
Care Facility (CHCF)
in Stockton, which will
provide the state with
additional housing
capacity.)
. . . But Other Factors
Could Change Actual
Outcome in Either
Direction. While the
department’s current
projections indicate that
the state would miss
the court’s upcoming
deadlines, there is
	

Figure 4

Uncertain Whether State Will Meet
Court Population Deadlines
150,000
145,000
140,000
135,000

Adjusted Prison Population
Prison Population Limit

130,000
125,000
120,000
115,000
110,000
105,000
100,000
Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Jun-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-16 Dec-16 Jun-17

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	9

2012-13 B u d g e t

situation—post-realignment—where a major
change in policy has just been enacted, it is exceedingly difficult for the department to forecast how
the prison population will be affected a few years
from now. Again, CDCR’s longer-term projections
could be either high or low depending on a variety
of future factors, such as how successful counties
are in managing their existing and realigned
offender populations and whether there are any
significant changes in judicial and prosecutorial
practices that affect the number of offenders
sentenced to state prison.
LAO Recommendations
Direct Administration to Request More Time
to Comply. Given the uncertainty about whether,
and in what timeframe, CDCR will be able to
meet the federal court’s population limits, we
recommend that the Legislature closely monitor
the department’s progress over the coming year.
However, if the department’s updated population
projections—which will be provided as part of the
Governor’s May Revision—continue to project that
the state will miss the population limits in the short
run, we recommend that the Legislature direct
the administration to request that the three-judge
panel modify its compliance deadlines in order

to provide the state with additional time to meet
the required population limits. The U.S. Supreme
Court suggested in its recent court ruling that such
a request for more time to the federal three-judge
panel would be reasonable. Moreover, given that
the recently enacted policy changes are projected
to bring the state into compliance on an ongoing
basis, we believe the state has a strong case to make
to the court for additional time. Making the request
sooner rather than later is also important, as it will
give the state ample time to plan how it will comply
with the deadline if the federal court rejects the
request.
Consider Other Options if Additional
Reductions Are Needed. Absent an extension, the
Legislature may have to consider additional policy
changes that would further reduce the inmate
population. While there are some options that
the Legislature could choose from, these options
are much more limited than in past years because
so many of the lowest-level offenders have been
realigned to the counties. Some of the available
population reduction strategies include expanding
the use of contract facilities and fire camps,
expanding alternative custody or work furlough
programs, increasing the amount of credits inmates
earn, and changing sentencing laws.

Inmate Housing Facilities
Background
Inmate Classification and Housing. In general,
inmates are initially housed in reception centers
(usually in cells) upon their admission to CDCR.
After which, the department assigns inmates to
different types of housing based on several factors
including offense, length of prison sentence, and
behavior during current and prior incarcerations.
Inmates considered low security (classified as
Levels I and II) are generally housed in dorms,
10	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

while high-security inmates (classified as Levels III
and IV) are generally housed in cells. Female
inmates—regardless of classification—are often
placed in the same housing units. (Currently, the
state operates only three female facilities.) However,
as we discuss below, overcrowding in the state’s
prisons have made it difficult to effectively meet the
particular housing needs of certain inmates.
Current Plan to Construct Additional Prison
Beds. In 2007, the Legislature passed AB 900, in

2012-13 B u d g e t

order to relieve the significant prison overcrowding
problem. Specifically, AB 900 authorized a total of
$7.7 billion—$7.4 billion in lease-revenue bonds
and $300 million in General Fund support—for
a broad package of state prison and local jail
construction and rehabilitation initiatives, as
follows:
•	

$2.4 billion to construct infill beds
intended to replace so-called “temporary”
housing in gymnasiums, day rooms, and
other public spaces in prisons. (Infill beds
are housing units constructed on the
grounds of existing facilities.) Assembly
Bill 900 did not specify the mix of
high- and low-security infill beds to be
constructed.

•	

$2.6 billion to construct “reentry facilities”
primarily for inmates within one year of
being released from custody.

•	

$1.1 billion to construct inmate health care
facilities.

•	

$1.2 billion to help counties construct local
jail facilities.

•	

$300 million to make various infrastructure improvements at existing prisons.

At this time, over $5 billion authorized in
AB 900 has not been spent. However, CDCR has
developed an AB 900 Integrated Strategy Plan that
lists the projects it plans to complete in the next
few years with these funds, as well as the number
and type of housing beds (such as lower security
or higher security) that will be built. In addition
to the funds authorized in AB 900, the Legislature
has also provided CDCR with $135 million for
other prison construction and renovation projects.
At this time, however, the department has not
provided a revised statewide prison construction
plan for both of the above funding sources that
	

reflects the recent realignment of lower-level
offenders to counties. The administration indicates
that it is currently in the process of reevaluating its
plans.
Realignment Will Change Types of
Inmate Housing Needed in Future
Realignment will disproportionately reduce the
number of inmates in certain housing classifications.
Specifically, realignment will significantly reduce
the number of inmates in low security, female,
and reception center facilities. While the number
of high-security inmates will also decrease under
realignment, they will make up a smaller share of the
total reduction in the inmate population because of
their more serious criminal histories. Consequently,
high-security inmates will make up a much larger
share of the inmate population that will remain
in CDCR following the full implementation of
realignment, as shown in Figure 5 (see next page).
Long-Term Mismatch Between Population and
Bed Capacity. Because the realignment is projected
to significantly affect the make-up of the inmate
population, it is important to examine whether the
current prison capacity will provide the right mix
of prison beds for the types of inmates that will be
in prison after realignment is fully implemented.
Our analysis indicates that there will likely be a
mismatch between bed capacity and actual bed
needs in the long run, absent any changes to CDCR’s
current infrastructure plan. Such a mismatch can
be problematic for several reasons. For example, if
left unaddressed, the state could continue to have
significant overcrowding in high-security prisons,
making them less safe and more difficult to operate.
In addition, operating low-security and reception
center facilities with large amounts of unused space
would unnecessarily increase state costs.
As shown in Figure 6 (see next page), CDCR’s
current estimates of the long-term inmate
population indicate that, by 2016-17, the state will
www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	11

2012-13 B u d g e t

Figure 5

Realignment Will Significantly Change the
Make Up of the Inmate Population by 2016-17
Percentage of Population

60%

50

Without Realignment
With Realignment

40

30

20

10

Female

Low Security

High Security

Reception Center

Figure 6

Mismatch Between Capacity and Population by 2016-17
70,000

60,000

Projected Population
Bed Capacity

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Female

Low Security

High Security

12	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

Reception Center

have excess low-security
and reception center
beds and insufficient
high-security beds. (Our
calculations assume
that CDCR houses
inmates at 137.5 percent
of design capacity in
existing prisons, full
capacity in the state’s fire
camps, continued use
of contracted facilities,
and completion of
capital outlay projects
already underway.)
Specifically, there will
be excess capacity of
6,400 beds in reception
centers, 6,800 beds in
low-security prisons,
and about 2,100 excess
female prison beds.
Conversely, we estimate
that there will be a
shortage of 12,900 highsecurity beds. On net,
we estimate that, upon
full implementation of
realignment, the state
will have excess capacity
capable of housing about
2,400 inmates spread
across the different
types of housing used by
CDCR.
Governor Proposes
Some Changes to Prison
Construction Plan. In
light of the significant
reduction in the inmate
population resulting from

2012-13 B u d g e t

realignment, the administration has expressed
its intent to modify certain aspects of CDCR’s
current infrastructure plan. The administration
indicates that CDCR is in the process of revising
its plan, including its plans for AB 900 projects.
At this time, it is unclear when a revised plan will
be available for legislative review. Specifically, the
Governor plans to:
•	

Convert Reception Centers. The administration intends to convert an unspecified
number of reception center beds into beds
for other classifications of inmates.

•	

Convert Valley State Prison. The administration plans to convert Valley State
Prison for Women in Chowchilla—a female
facility with a design capacity for about
2,700 inmates—into a low-security male
facility by July 2013.

•	

Cancel Certain AB 900 Projects. The
administration is also planning to cancel
three specific projects planned under
AB 900. The administration will not be
requesting funds for the DeWitt Nelson
infill project and the Northern California
Reentry Facility project. In addition, as
part of the proposed 2012-13 budget, the
administration is proposing to remove
funding previously approved for the
activation of the Estrella infill project.

•	

Reconsider Infrastructure Projects. The
administration has stated its intent to
reconsider various infrastructure projects
currently planned at sites around the state,
including infrastructure improvements
scheduled to be funded with $125 million
of the remaining balance of the
$300 million General Fund appropriation
contained in AB 900.

	

In addition, the Governor is proposing budget
trailer legislation to expand the Alternative Custody
for Women program, which was established by
Chapter 644, Statutes of 2010 (SB 1266, Liu). This
program currently allows female offenders who
meet several qualifications—including having no
prior or current convictions for serious or violent
offenses—to serve their sentence in the community.
The Governor is proposing to expand the program
to include women who have had current or prior
serious or violent convictions, in order to allow
CDCR to place these offenders in the community,
further decreasing the need for female facilities.
LAO Recommendations
We find that most of the Governor’s proposals
discussed above would help CDCR better match
its long-term capacity with its projected inmate
population. For example, the Governor’s proposal
to convert reception center beds to higher-security
beds would reduce the projected oversupply of
reception center beds and undersupply of highsecurity beds. Despite the proposed changes,
however, we estimate there will still be a significant
mismatch of beds and inmates. Most significantly,
we still estimate a shortfall of at least 6,500 highsecurity beds.
Thus, we recommend that the Legislature direct
CDCR to (1) maximize the use of existing facilities
for high-security inmates, (2) revise its long-term
plans to address remaining shortfalls as needed,
(3) reconsider the size of AB 900, and (4) identify
facilities for possible closures. We discuss each of
these recommendations in more detail below.
Maximize Use of Existing Facilities for
High-Security Inmates. We recommend that the
Legislature direct CDCR to make maximum use of
its existing capacity, particularly for high-security
inmates where possible. This would help reduce
the amount of high-security capacity that may
need to be built in the future, as well as help the
www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	13

2012-13 B u d g e t

state comply with the federal court order to reduce
prison overcrowding. Specifically, we recommend
that the Legislature:
•	

Ensure Reception Center Beds Are
Converted to High-Security Beds. We
concur with the Governor’s plan to convert
surplus reception center beds to beds for
high-security inmates. As mentioned
above, reception centers generally have
celled housing that is largely similar to
high-security housing units. Thus, the
proposed conversions would likely be
inexpensive compared to building new
facilities and take a relatively short amount
of time to complete. We estimate that
approximately 6,400 reception center
beds could be converted to high-security
facilities, offsetting the projected shortfall
in high-security beds by about half.

•	

Direct CDCR to Review Existing
Low-Security Facilities. We recommend
that the Legislature direct CDCR to
include in its long-term facility plans an
assessment of the extent to which certain
low-security facilities can be used to house
high-security inmates. We note that this is
already occurring to some extent due to the
current shortage of high-security beds. For
example, both Folsom State Prison and the
Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,
which are best suited for low-security
inmates, have been successfully used in
recent years to house high-security inmates.

•	

House Some High-Security Males at a
Converted Valley State Prison. Given the
projected reduction in the female inmate
population, we find that the Governor’s
plan to convert Valley State Prison to a
men’s facility has merit. However, rather

14	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

than covert it to a low-security facility, as
proposed by the Governor, we recommend
that the Legislature direct CDCR to house
as many high-security inmates as possible
at the prison. We note that Valley State
Prison currently includes cells capable of
housing about 260 high-security inmates.
•	

Approve Alternative Incarceration for
Women Expansion. We also recommend
that the Legislature approve the Governor’s
proposal to expand the Alternative
Custody for Women program, as this could
help address a small shortfall in female
beds that is projected to occur as a result of
converting Valley State Prison for Women
to a male facility. This would also help the
state comply with the federal court order to
reduce prison overcrowding.

•	

Direct CDCR to Report on Classification
Study. We have been informed that CDCR
recently completed a review of its security
classification procedures to determine
whether they need to be modified. Possible
changes in the classification criteria could
significantly affect CDCR’s overall need for
various types of facilities. At the time of
this report, CDCR’s classification study was
not publicly available. Thus, we recommend
that the Legislature direct CDCR to report
on whether the results of the security
classification study warrant modifications
in its classifications procedures and on
the extent to which such modifications
could impact the long-term need for highsecurity capacity.

Figure 7 depicts our estimate of how the state’s
facility needs would change if the approaches
outlined earlier were adopted, as well as our
recommendations later in this report related to

2012-13 B u d g e t

maximizing the use of fire camps. Based on these
warranted by the classification study, and
assumptions, we project that the current shortfall
(3) allowing individual high-security facilities to
in high-security beds would be reduced by about
remain slightly overcrowded. (The federal court
two-thirds—leaving the need for 4,200 highordered population limit applies to the prison
security beds. We also estimate that female and
system as a whole, and not to each individual
reception center bed capacity would roughly match
prison.)
the projected populations for those beds. However,
Reconsider Size of AB 900. While some of
we estimate that there would be a surplus of about
the remaining AB 900 funds may be necessary
7,300 low-security beds. In total, the state would
to convert existing facilities to high-security
have a net surplus of about 3,100 beds.
housing, this will only account for a fraction of the
Revise Plans to Address Additional Shortfalls
remaining $3.1 billion in AB 900 funds earmarked
as Needed. As mentioned previously, there is some
for infill and reentry beds. Based on the departuncertainty with respect to CDCR’s long-term
ment’s revised infrastructure plan, the Legislature
population projections. As such, we believe it
may want to reduce the size of the AB 900 bond,
is important that CDCR carefully monitor its
potentially by billions of dollars. This would save
population changes and reassess its long-term
the state substantial debt service payments over
facility plan frequently in the coming years.
the long term. For example, if only $1 billion of
Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature
the remaining funds are found to be necessary for
direct CDCR to annually update its long-term
reconfiguring existing facilities, the state could
facility plan. We further recommend that the
save more than $200 million in annual debt service
Legislature withhold funding for future capital
payments.
outlay requests unless
an updated facility plan
demonstrates that the
Figure 7
project is consistent with
LAO Approach Would Better
CDCR’s latest population
Align Population and Capacity by 2016-17a
projections.
In addition, the
70,000
department should
Projected Population
60,000
identify specific proposals
Bed Capacity
to address any remaining
50,000
shortfall in high-security
housing identified in
40,000
its revised plans. For
30,000
example, the department
could address a shortfall
20,000
by (1) expanding the
use of contract facilities,
10,000
(2) making any downward
adjustments in inmate
Female
Low Security
High Security
Reception Center
a
Reflects fire camps at full capacity.
security classifications
	

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	15

2012-13 B u d g e t

Identify Facilities for Possible Closure. Given
that the state is projected to have thousands of
excess low-security beds, the state may be in a
position to close one or more prisons in future
years. Closing a prison could result in tens of
millions of dollars of savings annually for the state.
In addition, prison closures could result in positive
fiscal benefits to the state from avoiding facility
maintenance costs, as well as generating one-time
revenue from the sale of closed facilities. As such,
the Legislature should direct CDCR to include in
its capital outlay plans a review of possible prison
facilities that could be closed in the near future.
In determining which facilities to close, we believe
that consideration should be given to the following
criteria.
•	

•	

Security Level of Existing Inmate
Population. Facilities that are largely
or exclusively being used to house
low-security inmates are good candidates for closure, given the projected
oversupply of these beds systemwide.
However, there may be particular reasons
why a low-security facility should remain
open, such as whether it could be used
to house higher-security inmates and
whether it currently operates to meet a
critical need (such as a health care facility
or fire camp).
Cost to Operate. For various reasons,
including the prison’s design (which can
drive staffing needs), certain prisons are
more expensive to operate than others.
For example, the California Institution
for Men (CIM) in Chino houses inmates
similar to those housed at the Deuel
Vocational Institution (DVI) in Tracy.
Despite this similarity, CIM had an
average per inmate cost of $55,000 per
year in 2010-11, while DVI had an average

16	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

per inmate cost of $44,000. In order
to maximize state savings, priority for
closure could be given to the state’s more
expensive prisons.
•	

Older Prisons. Many CDCR prisons
are more than 30-years old. While still
operational, many of these prisons require
much greater levels of maintenance, and
some will require significant renovations.
Long-term maintenance and renovation
costs should be taken into consideration
when identifying possible prisons to close.

•	

High Vacancy Rate. For various reasons,
certain facilities have difficulty recruiting
and retaining staff. This can result in
greater overtime costs and make it difficult
for the facility to provide the same level
of service as facilities with lower vacancy
rates. Facilities with high vacancy rates
therefore may make better candidates for
closure.

•	

Revenue From Sale. In identifying
facilities for closure, CDCR should also
consider whether the facility could be sold
and the amount of one-time revenue such
a sale would generate for the state. For
example, it has been suggested that the sale
of San Quentin could generate a significant
amount of one-time revenue for the state.

We note that, even though a facility may
meet several of these criteria, further analysis
may demonstrate that it is not a good candidate
for closure. For example, a prison may have a
specialized mission (such as the delivery of inmate
health care services or substance abuse treatment)
that may be difficult to fulfill at another prison.
Moreover, CDCR may identify other key criteria
that merit consideration.

2012-13 B u d g e t

CDCR’s Fire Camp Program
being admitted to CDCR, the remaining offenders
will be more likely to have offense histories and
security classifications that make them ineligible to
participate in the camps. As a result, it is estimated
that the population of inmates in the fire camps
will decrease significantly in future years, as shown
in Figure 9 (see next page). Specifically, based on
information provided by CDCR, we estimated
that the fire camp population could drop to about
2,500 inmates by 2016-17, representing a 38 percent
decline from 2010-11.
In part to address the above decline, the
realignment legislation authorizes counties to
contract for space in fire camps for offenders
currently housed in jails. Currently, CDCR is
working on implementing such contracts with
counties and is proposing to charge $46 per day
per offender. This amount is roughly equivalent to

Background

The CDCR currently operates 42 adult fire
camps, which can accommodate about 4,500
low-level inmates. Inmates assigned to fire camps
carry out fire suppression work and respond to
other emergencies, such as floods and earthquakes.
In addition, fire crews work on conservation
projects on public lands and provide labor on
local community services projects. In order to
be eligible for a fire camp, inmates must meet a
series of requirements. For example, inmates that
have committed certain crimes (such as arson) are
ineligible. In addition, inmates must be eligible for
low-security housing. These screening criteria make
many inmates ineligible for fire camps. Figure 8
summarizes the screening criteria.
Inmates that participate in fire camps receive
additional benefits compared to other prison
inmates. Fire camp
inmates get more “good
Figure 8
time” credits towards their
Fire Camp Screening Criteria
release date. In addition,
Criteria
Description
fire camp inmates earn
Offense history
Inmates with current or prior convictions for certain offenses (including
higher pay than inmates
murder, rape, and arson) are automatically ineligible. Certain other
offenses, such as involuntary manslaughter, require case-by-case
working other prison jobs,
review.
such as in the kitchen or
Security classification Inmates with security levels III and IV are excluded. (Inmates must be
laundry.
eligible for minimum custody.)
Realignment Will
Likely Reduce Number
of Inmates Eligible
for Fire Camps
Many Remaining
Inmates Likely Ineligible
for Fire Camps. Because
realignment will result
in certain lower-level
offenders no longer

	

Time to serve

Inmates must have at least 60 days (if they have prior camp experience)
and no more than 15 years left to serve.

Disciplinary history

Inmates must not have a pattern of excessive misconduct or have
disrupted the orderly operations of their institution. Inmates with prior
disciplinary problems may be eligible for a case-by-case review if
they have remained disciplinary free for a sufficient length of time.

Gang affiliation

Inmates must have no validated active or inactive prison gang
membership or association.

Health profile

Inmates must be specifically cleared by medical for camp placement.
Inmates with medical, psychiatric, or dental concerns may be excluded.

Public interest cases

Inmates that are determined to be public interest cases that require
exceptional placements due to their notoriety are excluded.

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	17

2012-13 B u d g e t

CDCR’s current cost to
house a fire camp inmate,
Figure 9
but significantly less than
Realignment Could Significantly Impact Fire Camp Population
the amount most counties
pay to house an offender
4,500
in jail, which on average
4,000
is about $100 per day.
3,500
Currently, it is unclear
how many, if any, counties
3,000
will choose to contract
2,500
with the state to send local
inmates to fire camps.
2,000
(For a more detailed
1,500
discussion of the cost
1,000
of fire camps relative to
other placement options
500
available to counties,
please see the nearby box.)
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Actual
Projected
Unintended
Consequences of the
•	 Make it Harder to Meet Federal Court
Underutilization of Fire
Order. As discussed earlier in this
Camps. If the state cannot make full use of its fire
report, capacity in the fire camps is not
camp capacity, there could be several different
subject to the three-judge panel order
consequences. Specifically, underutilization of the
regarding prison overcrowding. Therefore,
fire camps would:

Fire Camps Appear to Be Good Investment for Counties
Estimating whether fire camps are a cost-effective management option for counties depends
on what alternatives counties would otherwise utilize. Placement in a fire camp costs less per
day ($46) than placement in jail (about $100 on average). On the other hand, some community
supervision options are generally even less expensive on a per-day basis. For example, community
supervision can be as little as $5 to $17 per day, depending on the level and type of supervision and
programming the offender is enrolled in. However, fire camps can still be a cost-effective placement
for counties overall. This is because inmates in fire camps have two days taken off their sentence for
each day served in a fire camp with good behavior. Thus, an inmate with a four-year sentence, for
example, could be released in as little as 1 year and 4 months, at a total cost of about $22,000. By
comparison, the same four-year sentence served half in jail (earning day for day credits) and half
on community supervision might cost about $40,000, depending on the level of supervision and
services provided while on community supervision.

18	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

2012-13 B u d g e t

compliance with the court’s population
limits is made more difficult to the extent
that CDCR is not able to maximize the
number of inmates it is able to place in fire
camps, rather than in its prisons.
•	

Increase Prison Costs. Given that the
$46 per day average cost for the fire camps
is far below the $152 per day DOF currently
estimates prison inmates will cost in
2012-13, the state would incur significant
costs by not fully utilizing the camps. For
example, if the state fails to make use of
the nearly 2,000 beds that are projected
to be vacant in the fire camps due to
realignment, the state could be incurring
about $32 million annually in additional
prison costs. Further, by not fully using
the capacity in the camps, the state would
have less ability to close prisons while still
complying with the three-judge panel
order, and could therefore be unable to
achieve the significant savings created by
prison closures.

•	

Make Firefighting More Costly. If the
number of fire camp inmates drops
significantly, the state may need to rely
on contracts with federal or county
fire agencies for some fire protection
work previously carried out by inmates.
According to CalFire, the cost of
inmate fire crews is $144 per hour of fire
suppression service, while the equivalent
numbers for federal and local government
crews is $356—more than double the cost.
During the 2011 fire season, inmate fire
crews provided around 95,000 hours of
service, saving the state about $20 million
compared to the amount paid if those
hours had been contracted to federal or
local governments. We also note that
	

federal and local agencies have competing
workload that may make them unavailable
to assist CalFire, even in cases where the
state is willing to pay for their services.
LAO Recommendation
To ensure that the state fully utilizes its fire
camp capacity, we recommend that the Legislature
direct CDCR to (1) review its fire camp eligibility
criteria and (2) identify incentives to encourage
inmates to volunteer for fire camps.
Review Eligibility Criteria for Modification.
Modification of the eligibility criteria could
increase the number of state inmates eligible for
the program. For example, the eligibility criteria
could be modified to allow high-security inmates
that are relatively similar to low-security inmates
to serve in fire camps. Specifically, inmates with
classification scores of 28 or more are high-security
and ineligible for fire camps, while inmates with
a classification score of 27 or less are low security
and eligible for the fire camps. Yet, it is likely that
there is very little difference between inmates with
such similar scores. In addition, the current criteria
exclude individuals who have more than 15 years
of their sentence left to serve. By relaxing this
criterion by several years, additional inmates—who
can potentially provide a significant number of
years of service to the fire camp program—could be
made eligible. The Legislature could further direct
that CDCR review the criteria used by other states
that maintain similar inmate fire camps (such as
Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington), to
assess how restrictive and effective their criteria
have been.
Increase Incentives for Inmate Participation.
Even after realignment, the department projects
there will be over 30,000 low-security inmates
in CDCR. One could reasonably expect that
the department could continue to fill 4,500 fire
camp beds from that population despite the
www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	19

2012-13 B u d g e t

somewhat restrictive eligibility criteria. It may be
that providing additional incentives for inmates
to volunteer for fire camps would increase the
likelihood that the department could keep the
fire camps full with state inmates. This could be
accomplished in several ways. For example, the
Legislature could increase the amount of pay or
credits inmates earn in the fire camps, create an

employment transition program to assist fire camp
inmates in obtaining jobs before they are released,
allow inmates to request assignment to specific fire
camps, or institute furlough programs for inmates
in the fire camps. It is likely that any costs incurred
in developing these incentives would be far
outweighed by the state prison and fire protection
savings that would accrue.

Inmate Medical Facilities
inpatient care available within CDCR
prisons. These beds are for inmates who
require nursing care 24 hours a day and
extensive assistance with daily activities
such as bathing and eating. Like low-acuity
beds, high-acuity beds are also sub-categorized as short or long term.

Background
Inmate Medical Care Services. The state
currently provides a variety of medical services
to inmates. The services vary according to each
inmate’s medical needs and are broadly categorized
as follows:
•	

Outpatient Services. Each of the state’s
33 prisons has a medical clinic where physicians deliver basic primary care to inmates
on an outpatient basis. Inmates receiving
care at these clinics range from those who
are relatively healthy to those classified as
Specialized General Population (SGP), who
have chronic medical needs such as regular
injections and frequent nursing assessment.

•	

Low-Acuity Hospital Beds. Low-acuity
hospital beds provide inpatient care
to inmates who have complex medical
problems that require daily nursing care.
Low-acuity beds are sub-categorized as
either short term—for inmates who will
ultimately be returned to the general
population—and long term—for inmates
who are likely to require care for the rest of
their lives.

•	

High-Acuity Hospital Beds. High-acuity
hospital beds are the highest level of

20	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

As mentioned earlier, the three-judge panel
convened by the Plata and Coleman courts found
that prison overcrowding was the primary cause of
the state’s failure to deliver adequate medical and
mental health care. The three-judge panel identified
numerous examples of how overcrowding presents
operational challenges for the medical program.
Examples of how overcrowding impacts medical
care delivery include:
•	

Makes Prisons Less Secure. Overcrowding
forces CDCR to house inmates in gymnasiums and dayrooms that are not designed
to house inmates. These nontraditional
housing arrangements are less secure and
thus security staff impose frequent and
persistent lockdowns to maintain control.
During lockdowns inmates are generally
restricted from leaving their cells without
security escorts, which makes it difficult for
them to go to medical appointments and
receive their daily medications.

2012-13 B u d g e t

Makes Staffing Difficult. As the inmate
population increases, the department
has trouble hiring additional medical
staff because qualified applicants are
often unwilling to work in the stressful
environment of an overcrowded prison.
This problem is compounded by the fact
that many California prisons are located in
more rural parts of the state with smaller
medical communities from which to hire.

•	

•	

Increases Evaluation Costs.
Overcrowding presents particular
challenges at reception center prisons
because each new inmate arriving at a
reception center must receive a medical
evaluation. Historically, the department
has struggled to provide these evaluations
in a timely manner and, thus, has been
forced to divert staff time and resources
that could have been used for other
purposes to complete evaluations.

•	

Increases Inmate Medical Needs.
Overcrowding also tends to increase the
medical needs of prisoners. For example,
overcrowding contributes to the spread of
infectious diseases.	

Current Plan to Construct Additional Medical
Care Facilities. As mentioned earlier, AB 900
appropriated $1.1 billion for construction or
renovation of medical, mental health, and dental
care facilities. In addition, about $900 million of
the $2.4 billion appropriated for infill beds is being
used to construct CHCF, a new prison hospital in
Stockton. Construction of the CHCF has already
begun. The facility, which is scheduled to be fully
occupied by December 31, 2013, will have a capacity
of 1,722 beds—including over 1,000 long-term
high- and low-acuity hospital beds. In addition, the
federal Receiver intends to use about $750 million

	

authorized in AB 900 to make medical facility
upgrades to the state’s 33 prisons in order to
improve their capacity to deliver medical services
to inmates (such as by expanding existing medical
clinics).
Realignment Will Alter the
Long-Term Need for Medical Facilities
Additional Outpatient Housing Appears Not
Needed. As realignment will significantly reduce
prison overcrowding, it will also alleviate many of
the operational challenges to the inmate medical
care program discussed above. This will make it
easier for the department to deliver adequate care
to inmates who are currently receiving outpatient
care at existing prisons—including SGP inmates—
and eliminate the need for the construction of new
outpatient housing. For example, lockdowns should
decline as a result of realignment, which will make
it easier for inmates to get to their health care
appointments and receive medication. In addition,
reduced overcrowding should make it easier for
CDCR to hire needed medical care staff.
Moreover, realignment will reduce the number
of new inmates arriving at reception centers from
about 9,000 per month to about 2,400 per month,
freeing up resources that would otherwise be used
on inmate evaluations. Reduced overcrowding will
also decrease the spread of infectious diseases,
as well as increase the department’s flexibility
to consolidate SGP inmates at existing prisons
designated as “medical hubs.” Medical hub prisons
generally possess medical clinic space, are in
proximity to community hospitals, and have the
ability to recruit and retain qualified medical staff.
Construction of CHCF Will Largely Meet
Inpatient Hospital Bed Needs. Current projections
indicate that there could continue to be a small
shortage of high- and low-acuity hospital beds for
male inmates even after the construction of CHCF
and full implementation of realignment. According
www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	21

2012-13 B u d g e t

to data provided by the Receiver, realignment will
only reduce the need for high- and low-acuity
hospital beds by 9 percent. This is because the
inmates needing these particular beds tend to
be elderly inmates who are serving sentences for
violent and serious crimes and, thus, would not be
impacted by realignment. We are projecting that
the department will have a surplus of 526 highacuity beds and a deficit of 638 low-acuity beds
upon full implementation of realignment in
2016-17. We note that, according to the Receiver,
high-acuity beds can often be converted to
low-acuity beds through staffing adjustments
should more low-acuity beds be needed. Thus, as
shown in Figure 10, our projections indicate that
there may be a net shortfall of 112 inpatient beds.
There are, however, several variables that make
our projections subject to significant uncertainty.
For example, it is very difficult to predict the
department’s future need for short-term prison
hospital beds. Because of a lack of long-term care

beds, the department has historically used shortterm care beds to provide treatment to inmates in
need of long-term care. The CHCF will provide
long-term care bed capacity, which should allow
the department to begin using short-term care
beds for their designated purpose. We expect
this will allow the department to develop a more
accurate estimate of their actual need for shortterm care beds. In addition, there are currently
about 250 short-term medical care beds that have
been temporarily converted to treat mentally ill
inmates and could be converted back to medical
uses when various mental health projects are
completed, as we discuss later in this report. Our
estimate of the overall shortfall in medical beds
assumes that all of these beds will be repurposed
for medical use when they are no longer needed
for mental health treatment, but the actual number
could be lower depending on the future mental
health needs of the inmate population. Finally, our
projection does account for the impact of medical
parole, which we estimate
will decrease the total
need for hospital beds
Figure 10
by about 40 beds upon
Minor Shortfall in Ongoing Male Inpatient Medical Bed Need
full implementation,
2016-17
but could be higher or
Low-Acuity Beds
2,500
lower depending on
High-Acuity Beds
how the new policy is
implemented by the
2,000
Projected Shortfall (112)
department and Receiver.
(Medical parole involves
1,500
the release of inmates
who are medically
incapacitated and are
1,000
found by the department
to pose no threat to
500
public safety.) Based
on these uncertainties,
the actual number
Projected Need
Projected Capacity
of inpatient medical

22	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

2012-13 B u d g e t

beds needed could be higher or lower by several
hundred beds.
Overall Need for Health Care Facility
Upgrades Is Uncertain. The administration has
not yet submitted a detailed plan for what health
care facility upgrades it intends to make in existing
prisons with the funds provided in AB 900. A
conceptual plan submitted to the Legislature in
August 2010 includes renovations at all 33 prisons
costing a total of roughly $750 million. Given
the poor condition of many CDCR health care
facilities, it is likely that some amount of renovation
and improvement will be warranted. However, we
expect that significant changes will be needed to
the plan to account for the impacts of realignment.
For example, as we discussed earlier, realignment
may make it possible to close some prisons in the
future. Thus, it would be unwise to make significant infrastructure investments at such facilities
at this time. Furthermore, some reception center
prisons will be receiving far fewer inmates after
realignment and, thus, may have a reduced need
for additional medical facilities. The department
may also decide to change the underlying medical
mission of some prisons, which would affect what
health care facility renovations were needed.
For example, the department could choose to
consolidate medically complex inmates (such as
SGP inmates) at designated medical hubs which
may require more facility upgrades at those prisons
than others.

LAO Recommendations
Take Wait-and-See Approach Before
Approving Additional Hospital Beds. We
recommend that the Legislature wait for additional
information before approving any additional funds
related to the construction of additional high- or
low-acuity beds. Our estimates suggest the possibility of a shortfall in these types of beds compared
to the estimated need. Given the uncertainties
surrounding our estimates, however, we think it
makes sense to reevaluate the need over the coming
years as realignment is fully implemented and other
medical and mental health construction projects
are completed. To the extent that additional information demonstrates the need for these types of
beds, a portion of the $750 million designated for
facility improvements could be used to add the
necessary beds. We note that the Receiver does not
currently have a proposal for additional medical
beds, instead relying on the construction of CHCF
to provide this type of medical capacity.
Ensure Health Care Facility Upgrade Plan
Accounts for Realignment. The Legislature should
review whatever health care facility upgrade
plans are eventually submitted to ensure that
they account for the impacts of realignment. For
example, as we noted earlier, realignment may
enable the department to close some facilities in
the future. As such, the Legislature should carefully
review any medical renovation projects to ensure
that they are not occurring at existing facilities that
may be candidates for eventual closure.

Inmate Mental Health Facilities
Background
Inmate Mental Health Classifications. The
state provides a variety of mental health services
to inmates. The services received by inmates vary
according to the severity of their mental illness.

	

There are six levels of service that require inmates
to be placed in special housing accommodations.
•	

Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP).
Inmates classified as EOP receive treatment
on an outpatient basis but are so mentally

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	23

2012-13 B u d g e t

ill that they cannot function in the general
population and require specially designed
housing units that include readily accessible treatment space.
•	

EOP/Administrative Segregation Unit
(ASU). Inmates classified as EOP/ASU are
a subset of the EOP population who have to
be temporarily isolated from other inmates
because they are a danger to themselves,
other inmates, or staff.

•	

Psychiatric Services Unit (PSU). Inmates
classified as PSU are a subset of the EOP
population who need to be isolated from
other inmates in a maximum security
setting for prolonged periods because
they are either gang members or have
committed a serious offense (such as
assaulting a staff member).

•	

MHCBs. The MHCBs provide short-term
(up to ten days) emergency services to
inmates who are experiencing mental
health crises and require inpatient
treatment and 24 hour a day supervision.

•	

Acute Care. Acute care beds are for
inmates requiring a longer duration
(generally up to 45 days) of inpatient
treatment with 24 hour a day supervision.

•	

Intermediate Care Facility (ICF). The ICF
beds are for inmates requiring inpatient
treatment with 24 hour a day supervision
for long durations (generally five to nine
months). These beds are subcategorized as
either high or low security depending on
the security risk of the inmates they serve.

Current Plans to Construct Additional Mental
Health Care Facilities. As mentioned earlier,
AB 900 appropriated $1.1 billion for construction

24	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

or renovation of medical, mental health, and dental
care facilities. Of this amount, the department has
allocated about $200 million for the construction
of additional mental health treatment and housing
capacity at different prisons. This includes eight
projects that will provide additional capacity to
deliver mental health treatment to a variety of
classifications of mentally ill male inmates. In
addition, the CHCF will provide roughly 600
additional inpatient mental health beds.
Realignment Will Result in Surplus Capacity
For Most Mental Health Classifications
Based on data provided by CDCR, we are
projecting that realignment will significantly
reduce the number of male inmates in certain
mental health classifications. For example, we
expect the number of male inmates classified
as EOP to decline by about 21 percent—from
4,173 inmates in 2011-12 to 3,303 inmates in
2016-17. As shown in Figure 11, we are projecting
that in 2016-17, CDCR will be at or above the
capacity needed to deliver treatment to most
classifications of mentally ill male inmates—even
without the Estrella and Dewitt Nelson projects,
which were proposed to include a total of 600 EOP
beds. For example, we project that the department’s
capacity to deliver treatment to EOP male inmates
will exceed their EOP population by 427 inmates
by 2016-17. In addition, the department is adding
capacity in several areas—EOP, EOP/ASU, MHCB,
and ICF (low security)—where there already
appears to be sufficient capacity to meet the
projected need in 2016-17. On the other hand, it
appears that the department might have a slight
shortfall in capacity in two areas—acute and ICF
(high security).
LAO Recommendation
Identify Alternative Uses for Projected
Surplus of Mental Health Capacity. As discussed

2012-13 B u d g e t

Figure 11

Mental Health Treatment Capacity for Male Inmates
Will Meet or Exceed Need in Most Areas
2016-17
Level of Care
Enhanced outpatient
Enhanced outpatient administrative segregation unit
Psychiatric services unit
Mental health crisis bed
Acute care
Intermediate care (low security)
Intermediate care (high security)
	Totals

above, it appears that the department will have
surplus treatment capacity in several areas
after the completion of the eight infrastructure
improvement projects that are currently underway.
Since all of these projects have already broken
ground, it is probably not cost effective to stop
them now. Instead, to the extent that these facilities
are not needed for delivering the type of mental
health treatment for which they are designed, the
department should consider repurposing them for
other uses. For example, the department should
consider repurposing certain types of treatment
space for which there will be surplus capacity (such

Projected
Capacity

Projected
Need

Excess/Shortage(-)

3,730
519
536
428
173
390
606
6,382

3,303
424
482
279
223
266
698
5,675

427
95
54
149
-50
124
-92
707

as for MHCBs) to deliver other types of treatment
in areas where there is a projected shortfall (such as
acute and high-security ICF). Alternatively, to the
extent the excess capacity is no longer needed for
mental health treatment, the department should
consider repurposing the space to provide medical
treatment or rehabilitation programs. In view of the
above, we recommend the Legislature direct CDCR
to report at budget hearings regarding its mental
health facility plans, including how it plans to
utilize the projected surplus of capacity following
the full implementation of realignment.

Prison and Parole Rehabilitation Programs
Background
CDCR Provides a Variety of Programs to
Inmates and Parolees. The CDCR currently
provides a variety of rehabilitation programs
to inmates, including academic and vocational
education and substance abuse treatment. In
addition, the department provides substance abuse
treatment and employment-related programs for
parolees. The enacted 2011-12 budget included
about $460 million for rehabilitation programs.
	

Figure 12 (see next page) summarizes the department’s current funded treatment capacity in each
of its major program areas for 2011-12. We note,
however, that program capacity may increase in
2012-13. This is because the Governor’s budget
for 2012-13 proposes to backfill a one-time
$101 million reduction to inmate and parolee
rehabilitation programs that was included in the
2011-12 budget. At the time of this report, the
department had not presented a plan for how it

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	25

2012-13 B u d g e t

will adjust the amount and type of programs as a
result of the $101 million restoration. Consequently,
the Governor’s budget assumes that the programs
will be funded in 2012-13 at their levels before the
$101 million reduction.
In recent years, CDCR has started using
assessment tools in order to identify the likelihood
that inmates and parolees will reoffend, as well
as to determine what types of programs these
offenders would most benefit from in order to
reduce their likelihood of reoffending. Based on
these assessments, state prison officials and parole
agents should be able to make more informed
decisions about the most appropriate programs
for offenders, as well as make determinations
about how best to prioritize limited program space
among all of the inmates and parolees. Inmates and
parolees are categorized as having a low, moderate,
or high need for programming in five areas.
According to CDCR, parole agents are supposed to
use this information along with other criteria (such
as a parolee’s history of substance abuse) to assign
parolees to programs. Inmates are further categorized as having either a low, moderate, or high risk
of reoffending based on an assessment of factors
such as their criminal history. The department’s
policy is that inmates who are assessed as having a
moderate to high need to for programming and as

having a moderate to high risk of reoffending are
given priority for placement in programs. Among
those inmates who are both moderate to high risk
and moderate to high need, priority for placement
is given to inmates who are nearing the end of their
prison term.
Research Indicates Many Programs Can
Reduce Recidivism. Although most of the
programs offered by CDCR have not been regularly
evaluated for outcomes, research throughout
the country suggests that many programs can
significantly reduce recidivism. For example, one
study by the Washington State Institute for Public
Policy found that programs such as substance
abuse treatment, cognitive behavioral treatment,
and vocational and academic education reduce
recidivism rates by an average of between 5 percent
and 9 percent. To put this in perspective, if CDCR
was able to reduce the recidivism rates of program
participants by 9 percent, the percentage of inmates
returning to prison would decline from the current
average of 65 percent to 59 percent. Research
also suggests that programs are more successful
at reducing recidivism when they follow certain
principles, which include the following:
•	

Program Model. Programs should be
modeled on widely accepted principles of
effective treatment and, ideally, research
demonstrating that the approach is
effective at achieving specific goals.

•	

Risk Principle. Treatment should be
targeted towards inmates identified as
most likely to reoffend based on their risk
factors—for example, those inmates who
display high levels of antisocial or criminal
thinking or severe mental illness. Focusing
treatment resources on these inmates will
achieve greater net benefits compared to
inmates who are low risk to reoffend even
in the absence of treatment programs,

Figure 12

Funded Rehabilitation
Program Capacity
2011-12
In-Prison Programs
Academic education
Vocational education
Substance abuse treatment

32,388
4,779
3,500

Parole Programs
Substance abuse treatment
Education
Employment

21,193
3,758
2,536

26	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

2012-13 B u d g e t

thereby generating greater “bang for the
buck.”
Needs Principle. Programs should be
specifically designed to address those
offender needs which are directly linked to
their criminal behavior, such as antisocial
attitudes, substance abuse, and illiteracy.
Programs that attempt to address multiple
areas of need tend to be more effective
at reducing recidivism rates than those
programs that target only one area of need.

•	

•	

Responsivity Principle. Treatment
approaches should be matched to the
characteristics of the target population. For
example, research has shown that male and
female inmates respond differently to some
types of treatment programs. Important
characteristics to consider include gender,
motivation to change, and learning styles.

•	

Dosage. The amount of intervention
should be sufficient to achieve the intended
goals of the program, considering the
duration, frequency, and intensity of
treatment services. Generally, higherdosage programs are more effective than
low-dosage interventions.

•	

Trained Staff. Staff should have proper
qualifications, experience, and training to
provide the treatment services effectively.

•	

Positive Reinforcement. Behavioral
research has found that the use of positive
reinforcements—such as increased privileges and verbal encouragement—can
significantly increase the effectiveness of
treatment, particularly when provided at a
higher ratio than negative reinforcements
or punishments.

	

•	

Post-Treatment Services. Some services
should continue after completion of intervention to reduce the likelihood of relapse
and reoffending. Continuing services is
particularly important for inmates transitioning to parole.

•	

Evaluation. Program outcomes and
staff performance should be regularly
evaluated to ensure the effectiveness of
the intervention and identify areas for
improvement.

CDCR Is Not Adhering to Certain Principles
of Effective Programming. The department is not
currently adhering to some of the above principles
of effective programming as well as it could be. For
example, the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) recently
found that CDCR is not always using needs assessments to assign inmates to programs. Although
the department assesses the programming needs
of prisoners, it does not often use the results of
the assessments to determine where inmates will
be assigned. This often means that inmates are
assigned to prisons where the programs they need
are not offered. In addition, the department does
not always use the results of the needs assessment
when assigning inmates to programs. For example,
despite the department’s policy of prioritizing
placements based on an inmate’s assessed level
of need, BSA found that many inmates with low
needs or with no needs assessment at all were
being placed in programs ahead of inmates with
moderate or high needs. The bureau also found
that parole agents were not consistently using
needs assessments to place parolees in programs.
According to BSA, the department’s failure to
properly use the needs assessment was largely
attributable to a lack of training for staff using
the tool. In addition, we find that the department
has historically not provided multiple types of
programs to inmates that have multiple areas of
www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	27

2012-13 B u d g e t

need—despite research suggesting that this is a best
practice because so many inmates have multiple
areas of need that contribute to their criminal
behavior. Instead, inmates in CDCR have historically been assigned to only one program even if
they are assessed as having multiple needs.
Based on data provided by CDCR, it also
appears that the department is not always following
its policy of placing inmates in programs based on
their assessed risk to reoffend. Enrollment data for
education programs indicate that almost 40 percent
of the enrolled inmates are assessed as having a low
risk to reoffend compared to about 30 percent each
for those assessed as having moderate and high
risk to reoffend. Finally, there is currently a lack of
evaluation of CDCR’s rehabilitation programs. This
makes it difficult to determine whether the department’s programs are actually successful at reducing
recidivism.
CDCR Lacks Sufficient Program Capacity
to Meet Identified Need. As shown in Figure 13,

there is currently a substantial mismatch between
the needs of inmates and parolees and the
programs that are available to them. While CDCR
assesses inmates for needs in five different areas—
(1) substance abuse, (2) academic and vocational
education, (3) criminal thinking, (4) anger and
violence, and (5) family criminality—it only
currently offers programming in two of them,
substance abuse and education. The department
assesses parolees for needs in three areas—
substance abuse, education, and employment—but
lacks sufficient capacity to meet the needs of
parolees in all three areas.
Realignment Will Change the Mix of
Programs Needed by Inmates and Parolees

Realignment is projected to reduce the parolee
population by about 72 percent upon full implementation, and the inmate population by about
24 percent over the coming few years. The decrease
in population will be concentrated in certain types
of offenders—specifically,
parole violators and those
Figure 13
who are nonserious,
Insufficient Program Capacity to
nonsex, and nonviolent
Meet Current Assessed Needs
offenders. As such, the
Inmates
rehabilitative needs of
Academic/vocational education
the remaining inmate
and parole population
Substance abuse
will differ from the needs
Family criminality
of the pre-realignment
Anger and violence
population.
While the department
Criminal thinking
has not provided us with
Estimated Need
an estimate of what the
Parolees
Annual Program Capacity
Substance abuse
post-realignment inmate
and parolee needs will
Education
be, based on the limited
Employment
data provided by CDCR
it appears there may be
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Inmate needs are based on estimated needs as of October 2011. Parolee needs are estimate for 2011-12.
a couple of significant

28	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

2012-13 B u d g e t

changes in the risk and needs profile of the
remaining population. Most notably, it appears
that the post-realignment inmate and parolee
population will have a relatively higher proportion
of inmates who have a lower risk to reoffend, as
well as a relatively lower proportion of inmates
who have a high risk to reoffend. This is likely
because the inmates and parolees remaining after
realignment will be relatively older because they are
serving longer sentences because of their current or
prior violent and serious crimes. Research indicates
that the risk of reoffending decreases significantly
with age. Alternatively, the inmates and parolees
being realigned tend to be repeat offenders who
regularly cycle in and out of prison and thus have
a higher risk to reoffend on average. In addition,
it appears the post-realignment inmate and parole
population will have a relatively smaller proportion
of offenders in need of substance abuse treatment.
Given that the parole population is projected
to decrease more than the prison population, there
may be an overabundance of resources in parole
programs relative to in-prison programs after
realignment. Finally, the population remaining in
prison and on parole after realignment will consist
of offenders with more prior serious, violent, and
sex offenses who are serving longer sentences. This
means that at any point in time there will be fewer
inmates within four years of release—a segment
of the prison population that, according to the
department, is currently given the highest priority
for placement in programming.
LAO Recommendations
Reprioritize Programs Based on Principles of
Effective Programs. Realignment presents an opportunity for the department to redesign its programs so
that they more closely adhere to the assessed needs
of the inmate and parolee populations, as well as the
principles of effective programming. The reduction
in the number of inmates and parolees may reduce
	

the need to spend funding on certain programs,
allowing reinvestment in other programs to better
address the needs of the remaining population. For
example, the much larger reduction in the parole
population might free up some resources that could
be utilized for in-prison programs.
Whatever changes could be made, however,
cannot be done thoughtfully without CDCR first
completing an evaluation of what the risk and needs
of its future population are likely to be. Based on
these findings, the state could prioritize program
funding to deliver those programs most suited to
the needs of the remaining population. For example,
the department could develop in-prison programs
in areas where inmates currently have needs that
are not being met (such as criminal thinking, anger
and violence, and family criminality). In addition,
because there will be fewer inmates within four
years of release, the department could expand the
group of inmates who are given higher priority for
program placement to include those with more
time remaining on their sentences. Alternatively,
the department could continue to prioritize
inmates within four years of release but provide
them with more types of programming in order
to address multiple areas of need simultaneously.
Finally, a small amount of resources could also
be reprioritized to evaluate CDCR programs to
determine which ones are most effective at reducing
recidivism, particularly for the more serious and
violent offenders that are going to remain in CDCR
post-realignment. Evaluations would then allow
the department to direct greater resources to those
programs in the future.
Withhold Funding Until More Information Is
Provided. We recommend that the Legislature not
approve the Governor’s proposed restoration of the
current-year, one-time reduction of $101 million
to rehabilitation programs until the department
has presented a plan for how it will use the funding
proposed by the Governor to modify its programs
www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	29

2012-13 B u d g e t

to account for the impacts of realignment and
conform to principles of effective programming.
It is our understanding that the department is
currently developing a plan to modify its programs
that will be completed this spring. We recommend
that the Legislature direct CDCR to present its
plan during budget subcommittee hearings this
spring. In developing the plan, the department
should (1) provide projections of the programming
needs and risks of inmates and parolees following
realignment, (2) identify steps it is taking to
modify the type and amount of programs it will
offer to address the needs of the remaining inmate

and parole population, and (3) specify how it
will address areas where it is not adhering to the
principles of effective programming as well as it
could be (such as assigning inmates to programs
based on risk and need and regularly evaluating
programs). If satisfied with the department’s
plan, the Legislature could approve funding in an
amount and allocation consistent with the plan. In
future years, the Legislature can monitor CDCR’s
implementation of its plan and hold the department
accountable for any failures to make substantial
improvements.

Conclusion
The 2011 realignment of certain adult
offenders, which was prompted in part by the
federal court order to reduce overcrowding, will
fundamentally change CDCR. In particular,
realignment will result in a significant decline
in the inmate and parole populations, resulting
in a much different mix of offenders left in the
state’s correctional system. Consequently, we

offer a number of recommendations designed
to ensure compliance with the federal court, as
well as better align CDCR’s facilities, health care
system, and rehabilitation programs with the state
inmate and parole populations that will be left in
CDCR in the future. Figure 14 summarizes our
recommendations.

Figure 14

Summary of Recommendations

99Request more time for compliance with federal court order to reduce overcrowding.
99Match facilities to remaining population by using existing facilities for high-security inmates, using

various strategies to address any remaining shortfall, reducing the size of Chapter 7, Statutes of 2007
(AB 900, Solorio), and identifying facilities for possible closure.

99Increase eligibility criteria and incentives for participation in fire camps.
99Wait for additional information before approving additional medical beds and ensure medical renovation
plans are adjusted in light of realignment.

99Repurpose excess mental health capacity for other uses.
99Withhold additional rehabilitation funding until department provides a plan with how it will match
programs to the population remaining after realignment.

30	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov

2012-13 B u d g e t

	

www.lao.ca.gov   Legislative Analyst’s Office	31

2012-13 B u d g e t

Contact Information
Anthony Simbol	

Deputy Legislative Analyst	

319-8350	

Anthony.Simbol@lao.ca.gov

Brian Brown	

Managing Principal Analyst	

319-8325	

Brian.Brown@lao.ca.gov

Drew Soderborg	
	

Inmate Housing and Population	
Fire Camp Program

319-8346	

Drew.Soderborg@lao.ca.gov

Aaron Edwards	
	

Inmate Health Care	
Rehabilitation Programs

319-8351	

Aaron.Edwards@lao.ca.gov

LAO Publications
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice
to the Legislature.
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service,
are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,
Sacramento, CA 95814.

32	 Legislative Analyst’s Office   www.lao.ca.gov